Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

<quoted text>You can answer if you want. But to think most all of that would not be possible with out evolution is silly. Well your first one is a no brainer. They do get paid to research evolution.As for links you all say that if someone makes a claim that they need to have evidence to back up what they say. So it is for you to provide the evidence with your claims.

You are welcome to you own opinion, remember that opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one.

On the other hand, fact and evidence are more discerning.

None of that list with the exception of #1 would be possible without evolutionary theory, and #1 is there because of evolution so are you saying that mankind has not helped mankind?

Unless of course you can provide valid information to justify your claim? Perhaps you can tell me how targeted medicines can be created without understanding what you were targeting?… Nope.

So how about targeting vaccines at a specific genetic and regional anomaly?… Nope.

How about creating bacteria that will digest and decompose noxious substances.?… Nope.

OK, then how about creating a wheat that is impervious to location specific diseases that is up to 10 times as abundant in it’s cropping than any previous strain?

I’m waiting for you to provide anything to back up your statement other than incredulous bluster.

Nope, I have not said that, I am a great believer in education, personally if a claim is made that I find relevant then I check it out. So I will say that if you are not willing to educate yourself then I certainly am not going to knock myself out trying.

<quoted text>No Jimbo. Science has not claimed that space is a perfect vacuum. You have claimed that science has claimed it. Then you have argued with your own claim. Then you have tried to pretend that I and others said space is a perfect vacuum. Then you have called us liars for not admitting that we said space was a perfect vacuum. You will not find a single post where anyone ever said space is a perfect vacuum.The perfect vacuum exists only between your ears.

If science said that the speed of light was variable in space, that would be admitting that space was not a perfect vacuum. Science cannot prove light speed, from just the earth to the moon and back, by its own words and yet, science proves too stupid to understand even that.

Furthermore, science explains how light disperses more and more, the further away it gets from its source, breaking down into individual photons, that the naked eye does not perceive without extraordinary aid.

Gravitational lensing is nothing more than the Hubble lense distorting the pictures.

<quoted text>I just pointed out his ignorance. He spent over 20 or 30 years by now and never once thought to reverse his experiment with that part of his test and, he manipulated the bacteria to make them eat citrus. Yea, he pretended it was an accident that they became citrus eaters, on purpose. He doesn't have the mind for intelligent science, as he proved.

OK, so now you are basely claiming not not that Lenski was incompetent, but that he lied.

<quoted text>If science said that the speed of light was variable in space, that would be admitting that space was not a perfect vacuum. Science cannot prove light speed, from just the earth to the moon and back, by its own words and yet, science proves too stupid to understand even that.Furthermore, science explains how light disperses more and more, the further away it gets from its source, breaking down into individual photons, that the naked eye does not perceive without extraordinary aid.Gravitational lensing is nothing more than the Hubble lense distorting the pictures.The list of stupidity by science is long.

Your misunderstanding of the properties of light is not in question, we know you are deliberately ignorant.

<quoted text>Then where do evolutionist's believe life came from or man came from?FROM:fishbirdsapesbacteriaglob of mudproteinnatural selectionrelativitycomplexitysimplicityRNADNAhmmm.....which one?and if any of the above....where did any and ALL of the above come from?

<quoted text>If science said that the speed of light was variable in space, that would be admitting that space was not a perfect vacuum. Science cannot prove light speed, from just the earth to the moon and back, by its own words and yet, science proves too stupid to understand even that.

No, YOU fail to understand that in the imperfect vacuum of space, which has very few particles compared to the earth's atmosphere, light will move at almost exactly the same speed as it would in a hypothetical "perfect vacuum".

Furthermore, science explains how light disperses more and more, the further away it gets from its source, breaking down into individual photons, that the naked eye does not perceive without extraordinary aid.

No, light both originates and finishes as "individual photons". Do you know what happens when your old fashioned electric bulb is glowing?

1. The electrons orbiting their nuclei in the filament jump to an excited state from the electricity's heat energy.

2. They jump out of that state into a lower energy state closer to the nucleus, RELEASING the energy they have accumulated as a single PHOTON of light energy.

3. Trillions of these photons disperse through the room bouncing off objects.

4. Your eye receives and focuses the flow of photons enabling you to see the objects in the room. Thought I would add that as you seem to be equally confused about how seeing works.

Whether its one photon or a billion trillion, that is what light is.

Gravitational lensing is nothing more than the Hubble lense distorting the pictures.The list of stupidity by science is long.

Sorry, but your uninformed opinion on the results of real scientists doing real Original Work are as ridiculous as they are arrogant.

<quoted text>If science said that the speed of light was variable in space, that would be admitting that space was not a perfect vacuum. Science cannot prove light speed, from just the earth to the moon and back, by its own words and yet, science proves too stupid to understand even that.Furthermore, science explains how light disperses more and more, the further away it gets from its source, breaking down into individual photons, that the naked eye does not perceive without extraordinary aid.Gravitational lensing is nothing more than the Hubble lense distorting the pictures.The list of stupidity by science is long.

How long has it been since the last time you took your medication? Did your wife keep you up to date with your meds, and now that you're on your own you've fallen off the wagon?

<quoted text>No, YOU fail to understand that in the imperfect vacuum of space, which has very few particles compared to the earth's atmosphere, light will move at almost exactly the same speed as it would in a hypothetical "perfect vacuum".<quoted text>No, light both originates and finishes as "individual photons". Do you know what happens when your old fashioned electric bulb is glowing?1. The electrons orbiting their nuclei in the filament jump to an excited state from the electricity's heat energy.2. They jump out of that state into a lower energy state closer to the nucleus, RELEASING the energy they have accumulated as a single PHOTON of light energy.3. Trillions of these photons disperse through the room bouncing off objects.4. Your eye receives and focuses the flow of photons enabling you to see the objects in the room. Thought I would add that as you seem to be equally confused about how seeing works.Whether its one photon or a billion trillion, that is what light is.<quoted text>Sorry, but your uninformed opinion on the results of real scientists doing real Original Work are as ridiculous as they are arrogant.

Science claims that space is full of dust. If earths atmosphere were full of dust, it would block out the sun.

You don't think much do you. You just babble anything that comes to your copy and paste ignorance. You're not even a good liar.

"A dust tail like Earth's could produce a bigger signal than a planet does. And it could alert researchers to a planet too small to see otherwise."Earth has a dust tail not because the planet itself is particularly dusty, but rather because the whole solar system is. Interplanetary space is littered with dusty fragments of comets and colliding asteroids. When Earth orbits through this dusty environment, a tail forms in the rear, akin to swaths of fallen leaves swirling up behind a streetsweeper."As Earth orbits the sun, it creates a sort of shell or depression that dust particles fall into, creating a thickening of dust – the tail – that Earth pulls along via gravity," explains Werner. "In fact, the tail trails our planet all the way around the sun, forming a large dusty ring."

A computer simulation of Earth's dust tail/ring seen from a vantage point outside our solar system. Colors indicate density; purple is lowest, red is highest. Credit: Christopher Stark, GSFC [larger image]Spitzer's recent observations have helped astronomers map the structure of Earth's dust tail and figure out what similar "tell-tale tails" attached to alien planets might look like.Like our own solar system, other planetary systems are infused with dust that forms a dusty disk encircling the central star. And like Earth, exoplanets interact with their dust disk gravitationally, channeling and drawing strange features into it."In some stars' dust disks there are bumps, warps, rings, and offsets telling us that planets are interacting with the dust," explains Mark Clampin of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. "So we can 'follow the dust' to the planets. So far, we've seen about 20 dust disks in other solar systems. And in some of those cases, following the dust has already paid off."Clampin, Paul Kalas, and colleagues were looking for a planet around the bright southern star Fomalhaut when they unexpectedly found a dust ring. The shape of that ring led them to their goal. "We suspected that the ring's sharp inner edge was formed by a planet gravitationally clearing out the surrounding debris," says Clampin. "We tracked the planet by this 'footprint' in the dust." (See the footprint here.)Another Hubble image shows a dusty disk around Beta Pictoris, a star in the constellation Pictor, or "Painter's Easel," pictured below:

<quoted text>Science claims that space is full of dust. If earths atmosphere were full of dust, it would block out the sun.You don't think much do you. You just babble anything that comes to your copy and paste ignorance. You're not even a good liar.

It depends upon how you define "full of dust".

The amount of dust varies enormously. Between the Earth and the Sun there is quite a bit and if our whole Galaxy had that much it would be opaque. In interplanetary space, that is the space within our solar system, there are roughly 11 molecules per cubic centimeter. That is quite a lot for scientists, you on the other hand would quickly die in a vacuum that "pure". In interstellar space, that is the space between us and our nearest neighboring stars, it drops to one molecule per cubic centimeter. In intergalactic space, the space that exists between our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy for example, it drops by about one million. There is only one molecule per cubic meter. There is very litle dust in intergalactic space. Of course even the amount of dust in intergalactic space can add up. All it takes is a lot of space, and there is a LOT of space out there.

<quoted text>Your misunderstanding of the properties of light is not in question, we know you are deliberately ignorant.D’oh, all light is individual photonsDouble d’oh. Gravitation lensing is nothing to do with hubble.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.